Has Anyone Been Saved Apart From Knowing Jesus Christ? The Harrowing of Hell

This is a very thorny subject, because people make too much of it. Some take it as license to extrapolate doctrines such as universalism or “invincible ignorance.”

Universalism is a concept so contrary to Scripture, it does not even warrant a response.

“Invincible ignorance” is another concept which also is contrary to the Gospel, specifically because it posits salvation being possible due to somehow lacking guilt–a complete impossibility under any circumstance for humanity. As we covered previously, the idea of invincible ignorance was unknown to the fathers in their exegesis of Rom 2.

So, has anyone been saved without explicitly having faith in Christ in this life? Of course. Everyone who died in faith before the incarnation did not have the same explicit knowledge of Christ that Christians now share. Furthermore, we have in the lives of the saints (a few) stories of seemingly unbelieving people being saved.

We will address this issue in the following order: In this article, we will discuss how the fathers discussed 1 Pet 3:19 and 4:6, as both passages refer to both “souls in prison” and “now dead” being preached to. In a future article, we will discuss the stories which convey the controversial idea that people have been saved without explicit faith in Christ.

The Harrowing of Hell. Perhaps the only non-controversial (among non-Protestants) teaching of the Church that directly addresses the issue of the “unbelieving” being saved is the “harrowing of Hell/Hades.” In short, as we can extrapolate from 1 Pet 3:19 and 4:6, Christ went to Hades, preached to the spirits there, and those who believed were saved.

At first glance, this does not seem like it really addresses the issue, as the presumption is that God saved only the faithful Jews. However, the fathers from what I can tell have taken a broader view that such preaching also included the Gentiles.

Saint John of Damascus writes that those who lived holy lives, during the harrowing of Hell, were given a second chance to believe:

Some say that [Christ delivered from Hades] only those who believed, such as fathers and prophets, judges and together with them kings, local rulers and some others from the Hebrew people, not numerous and known to all. But we shall reply to those who think so that there is nothing undeserved, nothing miraculous and nothing strange in that Christ should save those who believed, for He remains only the fair Judge, and every one who believes in Him will not perish…

Whereas those who were saved only through [God’s] love of men were, as I think, all those who had the purest life and did all kinds of good works, living in modesty, temperance and virtue, but the pure and divine faith they did not conceive because they were not instructed in it and remained altogether unlearnt.

They were those whom the Steward and Master of all drew, captured in the divine nets and persuaded to believe in Him, illuminating them with the divine rays and showing them the true light (Concerning Those Who Died in the Faith).

This is not some sort of late, medieval invention. Saint Clement of Alexandria, writing during the early third century, wrote of the exact same idea and in fact goes into more theological detail:

And it has been shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For it was requisite, in my opinion, that as here, so also there, the best of the disciples should be imitators of the Master; so that He should bring to repentance those belonging to the Hebrews, and they the Gentiles; that is, those who had lived in righteousness according to the Law and Philosophy, who had ended life not perfectly, but sinfully. For it was suitable to the divine administration, that those possessed of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, on repenting of their transgressions, though found in another place, yet being confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each one according to his individual knowledge…

The preceding (citation will follow) is fantastic in its claim. In short, not only were there (according to Clement) additional harrowings of Hell from the Apostles, salvation was made possible for “each one according to his individual knowledge.” Certainly, logically flowing from such an idea would be the doctrine of “invincible ignorance” if it were not the fact that the context of the passage dictates these souls were in a state of punishment before the preaching and “ended life not perfectly, but sinfully.” Nevertheless, one cannot help but tell that Clement imputes such men less guilt and views it unfair that they would have not been given a another chance in one of the additional harrowings. He continues:

If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there…those who lived rightly before the Law were classed under faith, and judged to be righteous,—it is evident that those, too, who were outside of the Law, having lived rightly, in consequence of the peculiar nature of the voice, though they are in Hades and in ward, on hearing the voice of the Lord, whether that of His own person or that acting through His apostles, with all speed turned and believed…they who heard and believed should be saved; and that those who believed not, after having heard, should bear witness, not having the excuse to allege, We have not heard….For it is not right that these should be condemned without trial, and that those alone who lived after the advent should have the advantage of the divine righteousness (Stromata, Book VI, Chapter 6).

What About All the Unreached People? Those who espouse “invincible ignorance” wrongly will view such a passage as support for their belief. Why?

For one, it appears the group being saved here had some sort of implicit faith like the Jews (which is why they so readily believed once given the chance). Further, not only were such people “sinful” (which means they would not meet the criteria for “invincible ignorance,”) they were in Saint Clement of Alexandria’s mind given a second chance only because they would have had an excuse otherwise. After the advent of Christ in the world, Clement teaches, there was no grounds for such an excuse. Obviously, modern proponents of “invincible ignorance” would differ with the saint on this matter.

This is a crucial detail that is always lost upon those who espouse invincible ignorance. There is a stereotype today that there are pygmies in Africa and nomads in Mongolia that never, ever, heard of the name Jesus. Speaking from personal experience, this may seem to be true. I have seen this once in Cambodia (though I am not sure if the person, due to senility, simply forgot the name of Jesus.)

However, this is not what the fathers thought. The fathers, quite explicitly, thought the whole world (or nearly all of it) had heard the name of Jesus Christ. Saint Augustine and Saint Propser of Aquataine literally said this. It appears Saint Clement of Alexandria either believes that this is what made the difference, or more simply, the advent of Christ changed the rules. After Christ came into the world, creation was forever changed and God could not look past such ignorance.

Saint John Chrysostom alludes to this when exegeting Acts 17:30–

[Paul] has agitated their soul by showing them to be without excuse, see what he says: The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent. What then? Are none of these men to be punished? None of them that are willing to repent. He says it of these men, not of the departed [during the times of ignorance], but of them whom He commands to repent…he hints at the whole world.

Likewise, Mathetes, who is (probably) an Apostolic father writing in the first or early second century, appears to appeal to the same idea when he writes that Jesus entered the world only after wickedness reached its height:

As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them (Epistle to Diognetus, Chap. 9).

This may seem “arbitrary and unfair,” but in addressing the issue Saint Augustine writes that “before He suffered and rose from the dead, the faith had not yet been defined to all, but [now] was defined in the resurrection of Christ” (City of God, Book 18, Chap 54). This is why, in Augustine’s mind, everyone subsequently is condemned apart from faith in Christ.

This is not something I am writing without significant reflection. I challenge my readers to find anyone in the ancient Church that would have taught otherwise, because I honestly cannot find it.

Doesn’t Peter Teach the Gospel Is Preached to the Dead (1 Pet 4:6)? Some people cite 1 Pet 4:6 as proof that the unreached normatively get a chance to believe in Christ after death. However, this is not how fathers interpreted the passage from what I can find. It appears, unlike 1 Pet 3:19, that the “dead” mentioned here are physically alive, but spiritually dead through unbelief:

Therefore he adds, “For this cause was the Gospel preached also to the dead”—to us, namely, who were at one time unbelievers (St Clement of Alexandria, Comments On the First Epistle of Peter).

On the same principle of interpretation, also, there is nothing compelling us to understand the immediately succeeding words of Peter—“For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit”—as describing what has been done in hell. “For for this cause has the gospel been preached” in this life “to the dead,” that is, to the unbelieving wicked (St Augustine, Letter 164, Par. 21).

The preceding is significant, because it shows the following: The fathers had a consensus that those before the advent of Christ had some excuse and were given the opportunity to repent during the harrowing of Hell. Nevertheless, they did not appear to have a concept that anyone after that point in time having the same opportunity. If they would have felt otherwise, I conjecture, they would have not been so quick to interpret 1 Pet 4:6 to pertain to the living instead of the unreached.

Were the Fathers Ignorant of How Big the World Was? People may say the fathers were wrong, because they were ignorant of people in areas far beyond the Roman Empire. Hence, they reason, the fathers would have taught that such people would be “invincibly ignorant” if they knew the people existed. There are three problems with this.

For one, it sets us above a consensus of the fathers which is morally dangerous. I would hope that a better understanding of demographics was necessary for the Church to better understand this doctrine.

Two, it contradicts church tradition that apostles made it all the way to Britain, Spain, Ukraine, Ethiopia, and India. It is not impossible that even by whisper or rumor, everyone in the old world would have heard (and, if Polynesians made it to the new world, this would be true worldwide.) Granted, this is all speculation, but Christian tradition already teaches that all of the Apostles reached the whole known world by the end of the first century. Sure, Church tradition forgot China and the Americas, but obviously the thrust of the tradition is that the whole world has heard the Gospel.

Lastly, the Scriptures literally say “there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5) who heard the message of Christ preached by Peter. Acts 15:21 states “in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him” alludes to the same. So, the Scriptures literally expound that the whole world has heard of the Law, and presumably, of Christ.

I want to be careful not to be overly literal and wooden with the preceding, as I am well aware that the Scriptures and traditions are speaking in absolute terms which do not appear to jive with a literal view of human history. However, I find it sufficient to not go beyond with speculations what the fathers (and Scriptures!) have taught on the topic: There was a harrowing of Hell, there was an “excuse” before the advent of Christ, and there is subsequently no excuse as far as anyone is aware.

Are We Simply Ignoring Common Sense? Some may argue that we can make logical extrapolations, something to the effect of “because God is good, and He gave people a second chance in the past, His goodness being the same (humanly speaking) He will also give people now a second chance.”

Yet, Saint Augustine explicitly rejected such reasoning when exegeting why (in his mind) only unbelieving souls in Noah’s day were preached to and no one else:

I speak only of those many thousands of men who, ignorant of God and devoted to the worship of devils or of idols, had passed out of this life from the time of Noah to the passion of Christ. How was it that Christ, finding these in hell, did not preach to them, but preached only to those who were unbelieving in the days of Noah when the ark was a preparing?…nor is it a necessary inference that what divine mercy and justice granted to some must be supposed to have been granted to all (Letter 164, Par. 5).

Why is this so? God cannot be reduced to a calculation, who recompenses to all equally in a predictable way. Those field hands who were unhappy with how God paid everyone the same though some worked more than others were told, “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?” (Matt 20:15) This confounds human reasoning, but it is precisely this “depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God” which are “unsearchable” and “past finding out” (Rom 11:33). We must presuppose this when looking into the mind of the fathers on this topic.

Conclusion. Instead of summarizing everything here, allow me to quote Augustine on the harrowing of Hell at length:

They say that all those who were found in hell when Christ descended thither had never heard the gospel, and that that place of punishment or imprisonment was emptied of all these, because the gospel was not published to the whole world in their lifetime, and they had sufficient excuse for not believing that which had never been proclaimed to them; but that thenceforth, men despising the gospel when it was in all nations fully published and spread abroad would be inexcusable…Those who hold this opinion do not consider that the same excuse is available for all those who have, even after Christ’s resurrection, departed this life before the gospel came to them. For even after the Lord came back from hell, it was not the case that no one was from that time forward permitted to go to hell without having heard the gospel, seeing that multitudes throughout the world died before the proclamation of its tidings came to them, all of whom are entitled to plead the excuse which is alleged to have been taken away from those of whom it is said, that because they had not before heard the gospel, the Lord when He descended into hell proclaimed it to them.

This objection may perhaps be met by saying that those also who since the Lord’s resurrection have died or are now dying without the gospel having been proclaimed to them, may have heard it or may now hear it where they are, in hell, so that there they may believe what ought to be believed concerning the truth of Christ, and may also have that pardon and salvation which those to whom Christ preached obtained…But if we accept this opinion, according to which we are warranted in supposing that men who did not believe while they were in life can in hell believe in Christ, who can bear the contradictions both of reason and faith which must follow? In the first place, if this were true, we should seem to have no reason for mourning over those who have departed from the body without that grace, and there would be no ground for being solicitous and using urgent exhortation that men would accept the grace of God before they die, lest they should be punished with eternal death..[Those who say not] believing will profit those who never despised a gospel which they never had it in their power to hear another still more absurd consequence is involved, namely, that forasmuch as all men shall certainly die, and ought to come to hell wholly free from the guilt of having despised the gospel; since otherwise it can be of no use to them to believe it when they come there, the gospel ought not to be preached on earth, a sentiment not less foolish than profane (Letter 164, Par. 12-13).

28 thoughts on “Has Anyone Been Saved Apart From Knowing Jesus Christ? The Harrowing of Hell”

Are you so sure that universalism is so easy to dismiss? Have you taken a look at the blog Eclectic Orthodoxy? It has a lot of material about universalism and is run by an Orthodox priest. Sts. Gregory of Nyssa and Issac the Syrian are but two examples.

I know there is a rebuttal of Fr Photopolous’ view of the universalist writings of St Isaac the Syrian being pseduographical, but I do think it is pretty clear that those writings were nestorian and venerated nestorian heretics. There is a good reason, if authentic, the works were not transalted into Greek or, simply, they are inauthentic.

Of course the article is savaged for being the result of an out-of-date epistemology, but it does not undo all of its points. The nestorian passages cannot simply be explained away as “not appreciating the richness of the Syriac linguistic and theological heritage.” Further, the fact these homilies were never in the Greek says something. It’s hardly a settled subject in scholarship (especially when the tendency in scholarship is to embrace everything “New” and “daring.”) Being a humble layman, I am not necessarily opposed to the idea we have a canonized saint who was outside of the canonical Church and may have really said a few Christologically heretical things. We show the same sort of leniency with Justin Martyr and other pre-Nicene Christological explanations. It speaks of the mystery of the God. I accept the fact he is venerated (though it appears the popularity of his veneration is more of a recent development) as vindication for the man, though perhaps not everything he ever said.

All Universalism goes against scripture. There’s no way that every soul will be saved. The Bible speaks of hell as a place of torment that is everlasting. “How narrow is the gate, and how pressing is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it.”(Matt. 7:14)

Overall, not a very convincing article. Universalism is clearly unbiblical, but the argument for the unreached pagans does not rest on interpretations of a few verses of scripture or the idea of invincible ignorance.
God is not limited by time, and when Jesus descends to Hades, we as humans have a tendency to assign a point in time to this event, most likely in error.

Do you really believe this though? Taken to its logical conclusion, this view seems to imply some sort of calvanist predestinationism, given the fact that there is an extremely high correlation between where you’re born and the religion you join, is it really fair that some people are raised being taught to hate the gospel and thus are condemned while others aren’t? Like just try and think about the implications of what you’re saying, you essentially destroy any free-will justification for the existence of hell, given most of the people being condemned in your scheme were never given the fullness of the faith in the first place, so how could they 100% freely and knowingly reject something they never had? Is there no blame on us who do possess the fullness of the faith and don’t properly communicate it?

Ben, I must disagree. There is nothing “predestinarian” about people choosing being in the Church or not. Take your inferences to their logical conclusion then buddhists and muslims are saved because its “not their fault” they were not born within Christendom, something that presupposes people are not liable to damnation for their sins.

Craig, my best response to your comment is to just say re-read my original comment. The reason I’m saying that your scheme here is “predestination” on some level is because people don’t always have a 100% free choice about whether or not they join the Church. I mean just take you for example. Let’s say you were born just a couple centuries ago, and all you ever heard of Orthodoxy was that it was quasi-pagan nonsense and only Protestantism could save you, and you grew up and died in a culture that believed this and so you believed it too. In this scenario, did you really have a 100% free choice in rejecting the true Church? If so, please explain how, and if not then we come to one of two conclusions: either 1.) you’re damned for not being in the true Church, and thus damnation is not something we “freely choose” but rather something imposed upon us by factors we had no control over (essentially Calvinist predestination) or 2.) God, in His mercy and love towards mankind, overlooks your ignorance (because that’s what it was) and judges you based on the knowledge that you were given. Take this “logic” and apply it to your examples of Muslims and Buddhists and maybe you can start to get a little perspective on where I’m coming from.

Again I disagree. In short God foreknows all things. He knows the decisions everyone will make according to their birthplace and temperament. So because you do not see things with God’s foresight you presume that He is being unfair. If one is not saved through right faith in Christ what can save a man? Works? Works only avail when we are in union with Christ and drawing closer to Him via Theosis. One cannot become like the true God and not believe in his existence like Buddha no matter how nice a man you are. Your soteriology is wrong so you dare speculate that anyone other than Christ through faith can save. God forbid.

You really think that others not believing the Gospel has nothing to do with the way it’s presented to them? You say I dare speculate about people being saved despite not having explicit faith in Christ, yet I could easily say it’s you who’s speculating by making definitive pronouncements of people’s damnation. I mean do you really believe that your parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. who aren’t orthodox are going to suffer eternally just because they lack something that they were never given?

I am not speculating. Only faith in Christ saves. Salvation is not outside the Church. Those who take part in “sects” will not inherit the Kingdom of God. THese are all general statements affirmed by the Scriptures and consensus of the CHurch. I dare not speculate on anything else.

It seems to me your problem is more with God than with the evidence revelation brings to bear. God is mericful, He was to Job. But, like in His answer to Job, we do not have the vantage point to judge His justice.

You seem to be avoiding my questions so I’ll just ask one very directly: if your family members die not having come into the Orthodox Church, are you going to refuse to pray for them because you’re so sure of their damnation that you wouldn’t want to question God’s judgement?

Of course I can pray for them. They cannot be prayed for liturgically nor may we presume upon their salvation. I mean no disrespect, but I find it disconcerting how flippant you are in disregarding traditional Orthodox teaching in this regard.

But why would you pray for them? From your own logic, everything points towards their damnation, so praying for them seems pointless don’t you think? It’s almost as if you believe that there’s a possibility for their salvation, despite the fact that they were outside the explicit bounds of the Church upon death: the very thing you accuse of undermining traditional orthodox dogma.
Furthermore, during the Liturgy when we pray “For the peace of the *whole world*, for the good estate of the holy churches of God, and for the *union of all men*”, are these just silly nice sounding words that don’t actually do or mean anything? Or what about at the end of the great entrance, when we pray “for the salvation of the people here present, those whom they are remembering, and of all mankind”? Is that wrong because the people we may be remembering and the majority of mankind aren’t orthodox and yet we’re praying for them during the Liturgy?
My point is this: I’m not trying to say that I’m 100% certain people outside the Church will be saved, maybe they won’t, you and me both have absolutely no way of knowing. What I am saying is that we can hope and pray for this, and in fact we sort of have no choice about praying for it unless you just want to just plug your ears during the aforementioned liturgical prayers for those outside the Church. What I’m also saying is that your contention that we can be pretty much certain of the damnation of all those who die outside the Church is just 1.) morally abhorrent and 2.) contradicts both private and liturgical prayer. After all, shouldn’t we constantly be seeking to “change God’s mind” and save those who “don’t deserve” His wrath (cf. Exodus 32)? Was it not Christ Himself who prayed for God to forgive those who killed Him, “for they know not what they do”?

You are following logic too much and not the teaching of the Church. None of your objections is “that’s unbiblical” or “the Church has not always taught that.” So, why would I have to believe anything other than what has been revealed to us by God?

Nevertheless, you ask:

But why would you pray for them?

I answer, why not? Even Saint Paisios prayed for Satan (though, I think this is really ill advised). St Gregory the Great (traditionally) prayed Trajan out of Hades (to be prayed out of Hades, you have to be there to begin with by the way). So, I pray to God for mercy. As the Council of Dositheus teaches we do not know the time of their release. In all cases, we don’t know even if they will be. But we leave that to God.

“From your own logic, everything points towards their damnation, so praying for them seems pointless don’t you think?”

No prayer for the good of an other is pointless, which is probably why God allowed Paisios the error of praying for Satan.

“It’s almost as if you believe that there’s a possibility for their salvation, despite the fact that they were outside the explicit bounds of the Church upon death: the very thing you accuse of undermining traditional orthodox dogma.”

We affirm dogma and practice. I can affirm generalities “liars do not inherit the kingdom of God” without judging each individual who has lied.

“Is that wrong because the people we may be remembering and the majority of mankind aren’t orthodox and yet we’re praying for them during the Liturgy?”

I have heard it said once that it sometimes makes hell less bad for some.

“What I am saying is that we can hope and pray for this…”

What we hope for, and what we objectively affirm, must be mutually exclusive.

Do you affirm or deny the explicit teaching of the saints into the 21st century that there is no salvation outside the Church, which we mean as the canonical Church, because we are not Protestants?

It seems to me that we may be converging on a point of agreement. You state that you pray for those outside the Church because there is a tradition of doing this, and God’s love and mercy knows no bounds. You also state that we must hold “hopes” and “objective affirmations” as being mutually exclusive. And I agree with both of these statements, and thus to your question:
“Do you affirm or deny the explicit teaching of the saints into the 21st century that there is no salvation outside the Church, which we mean as the canonical Church, because we are not Protestants?”
I will say this: I absolutely affirm that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, and thus His Body, the canonical Orthodox Church. No question about that. What I will not say, however, is that I affirm that everyone who dies outside the canonical Orthodox Church is guaranteed to be doomed for all eternity. I will always maintain that questions about the salvation of individual people is not something we can speculate about, and only something we can hope and pray the best for. And not only can we do this but I feel we are obliged to do this.

“What I will not say, however, is that I affirm that everyone who dies outside the canonical Orthodox Church is guaranteed to be doomed for all eternity.” Well, this cannot be maintained due to traditions of such being saved and certain saints (arguably st isaac the syrian, even jerome of prague and jan hus are venerated in the Slovakian Orthodox Church), so we would agree. I am always very clear to maintain the categorical statement of no salvation outside the Church and no salvation except through Christ. i do not comment on exceptions, because the Church has (by definition) not taught categorically on them.